I'm beginning to wonder if the Globe story is even more damaging than I first thought. A reader writes:
You wrote:
And simply saying that you were not in charge of Bain after 1999 would not be a felony.
Actually, in SEC filings, one must not merely disclose record ownership of a company, one must disclose the "beneficial ownership" (including all control arrangement) as well. Consequently, if the filings showed Romney as the sole owner and the CEO, etc. when other persons in fact had actual control of the company, that would also be problem. As a former securities attorney, and current professor of securities law, I can assure you that these are not technicalities.
Compare that with the Romney campaign's pushback:
This is nothing more than a quirk in the law. When Governor Romney took over the Olympics, he was not involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way. He was too busy working to make the Olympic Games among the most successful ever held.
I note that the Romney camp has not denied that Romney was paid $100,000 a year while they say he was doing nothing. Which adds a little irony to Romney's recent rhetorical flourish:
if they (Obamacare supporters) want more stuff from government tell them to go vote for the other guy – more free stuff. But don’t forget nothing is really free.
Except a $100,000 salary for a job you insist you weren't doing?
The Dish 